Search for: "Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois" Results 41 - 60 of 77
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2014, 9:41 pm by Barry Barnett
  Nor did Motorola's position square with a bedrock doctrine of U.S. antitrust law -- the "indirect purchaser" rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 1:20 pm by Robert Kreisman
In turn, Brandenburg hired Windy City Antique Brick Co. to retrieve, organize and haul away bricks at the site. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:06 pm by Howard Ullman
There are several exceptions to the Illinois Brick rule, including the so-called Royal Printing exception (see Royal Printing Co. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
Concord EFS, Inc. 13-63Issue: Whether a plaintiff who purchases directly from a member of a price-fixing conspiracy is necessarily a “direct purchaser” under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:45 am by Christine Nielsen
The Supreme Court concluded in Leegin that such agreements should be evaluated under the rule of reason; and (2) section 905(d) allows damages for indirect purchasers, which are barred in federal antitrust law under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 10:34 am by Sheppard Mullin
Even though plaintiffs purchased programming from MVPDs and not directly from the Leagues or the teams, she held that plaintiffs did not lack standing under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2012, 5:15 am by John W. Arden
The television subscribers successfully argued that their claims fell within an exception to the Illinois Brick indirect purchaser doctrine, the court ruled. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 6:52 am by Sheppard Mullin
By Dylan Ballard and Nadezhda Nikonova  The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a grant of summary judgment for defendants in an antitrust suit involving alleged price-fixing of ATM fees, holding that the plaintiffs were indirect purchasers within the meaning of Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 8:58 pm by Mike
As a result of this alleged “price fix,” interchange fees are, Plaintiffs maintain, higher than they would otherwise be.Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
11 May 2010, 12:26 pm by David Walk
This direct purchaser argument comes from an antitrust rule recognized by the Supreme Court in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 11:25 am by Editor
Had he lived, he might have co-authored the absurd NASCAR substance abuse policy. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 11:25 am by Editor
Had he lived, he might have co-authored the absurd NASCAR substance abuse policy. [read post]